Really, I have a different recollection of this bunch of people who incorrectly cites the Minnesota castle law because they think the Wikipedia description is the same as the actual law; ignores scientific evidence to claim that gunshot victims are doomed to die, and argues that it wasn't murder because... he's not convicted yet? Or something.

---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 02:05 PM ----------

No law allows him to kill them like this.

You have a recollection of people that directly cite the Minnesota law, yet try to snub your nose at them as you'd rather not read information but demand it be spoon-fed to you while you stand on your soapbox spewing your opinion over and over again.

If you were in his shoes, and you knew there were potentially dangerous people inside of your home, do you wait downstairs, killing them execution style as they come down the stairs, or do you leave the house, call the police, alert a neighbour? And don't use the whole 'he wasn't thinking clearly, it was all very traumatic for him' defence, because when it comes to killing someone in cold blood that defence doesn't really hold up.

Obviously you have never been in a situation like that... it's not like the movies and clear, rational thought goes out the window.

personally, id consider a coup de grace a dealbreaker for a self defense strategy. luckily for him im not on the jury or he'd be fucked. unfortunately for him i suspect that enough of his jury share my view

Yeah people like you shouldn't be on a jury, because the judge would give you an outline and rules for weighing the evidence, and my guess is you would ignore them, unlike most and go with your own gut feeling, and put a 64 year old man in prison to make yourself feel better.

Well, you're probably right about that. But the way these people are playing down the way the murderer brutally executed them makes my stomach churn. There is something seriously wrong with a person if they can't recognise "shooting a girl multiple times in the chest while she's down, and then fired a shot up into her cranium for a good clean finishing shot" as what it is - cold blooded, inexcusable murder.

I could change just a couple of words in your post here and it's a perfect description of abortion. If I remember correctly you're pro-choice. My stomach churns and you support it as a legal right. Same thing here, your stomach churns and someone supports it as a legal right. People believe different things. I don't disagree with you on this situation though. He needs to be charged with murder.

Originally Posted by Shinoashi

He doesn't need a source to know that he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” - Christopher Hitchens

But once they're no longer a threat you no longer have the right to continue injuring/killing them. He could have used a pillow to smother them for all it matters, at that point he was no longer defending himself but executing two people.

His actions including the bravado about the shooting makes me believe he was anything but sane. I am not dehumanizing anyone, the home owner is the victim in a home invasion, and this guy has been victimized multiple times.

The bravado means he's a dumbass. If you were in control and knew what you were doing, that points to being sane. You don't go to the loony bin for being stupid.

You have a recollection of people that directly cite the Minnesota law

No, none of you cited the Minnesota law. All I've seen is people citing Wikipedia.

This is the actual law:609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

He was not preventing a felony by shooting teens who as far as he could see were only tresspassing - and later, was bleeding on his floors.

yet try to snub your nose at them as you'd rather not read information but demand it be spoon-fed to you while you stand on your soapbox spewing your opinion over and over again.

Yet I'm the only one who's going off on the actual Minnesota law and case law, rather than confused application of the generic castle law that you read off Wikipedia.

Apparently tellling you lot to check the actual law code was too subtle a hint.

That sounds great! Obama is so wonderful he can make criminals( people known for not following laws) abide by guns laws?
Also he can make sure the police are at the scene of all crimes 100% of the time before any damage can be done to law abiding citizens and their hard earned property?

This is the number one pro-gun argument, and at the same time of all pro arguments the outright DUMBEST!!!!!

Because 2 cents worth brain figure out that if there weren't guns around, the criminals would have less access to them, hence gun violence would be nowhere compared to where it is now. And... picture that... With no one having guns, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself from guns..

Your logic is so flawed... If what you said was true, then the entire modern world must be doing something horribly wrong. Yet their gun violence is a lot lower... hmmmmmmm....... weird
We are talking about a robbery case here.
Let's say things would have been different. No one was at home. The two robbers would have been 2 lowlife gang crooks.
Oh look what they found in the house? 2 guns. (at least, cause 2 firearms was what he used). Guess where those 2 guns would have been after the robbery?
With the 2 crooks...... another 2 guns on the streets to be used to kill people.

The people defending the 2nd amendment radically are the ones at fault.
Everyone wants guns to defend themselves from others who could shoot them. Most of those guns who are a threat are in circulation illegally.
News Flash.. Criminals cannot get a gun. Criminals are Felons. Felony barres a person from the right to bear arms, from the right to possess a gun, even if it's just for having it at home.
So, the fault is with the law abiding citizen... Must be.. because, criminals cannot get guns legally.

Bottomline..... The moment an individual who possesses a gun, and is willing to use it purposely for the reason to kill, without considering other means, that individual should never be allowed to have a gun.
It is just that simple.

Gee, I don't know, maybe she heard gunshots and came to check if her cousin is alright?

Most people don't run to gun shots while in the process of committing a crime unless its to shoot back. Either way you can't expect the guy to magically know the intentions of someone coming down the steps that has broken into your home.

No, none of you cited the Minnesota law. All I've seen is people citing Wikipedia.

This is the actual law:609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

He was not preventing a felony by shooting teens who as far as he could see were only tresspassing - and later, was bleeding on his floors.

HAHAHA A guy gave you a Link to the actual online MN library that specifically PROVED YOU FUCKING WRONG!

It wasn't Wikipedia, I checked, Face it you don't know what you are talking about, and you can't argue a rational or logical argument to save your life.

No, none of you cited the Minnesota law. All I've seen is people citing Wikipedia.

You, sir, are a lazy, lazy person. Learn to follow the cited pages in wikipedia. Oh wait, since it's just wikipedia it's just all pipe dreams and whatever twack jobs decide to post, you know, instead of there actually being sources CITED. (HINT: they're at the bottom of the page)

Have your victory in whatever argument, semaphore, as you've made it very much clear that you will only look upon the situation from your one point of view.